复合型皮肤消毒剂的临床应用观察

Compound Skin Disinfectants:Clinical Application and Observation

目的观察2种复合型皮肤消毒剂(复合碘和安尔碘)的临床应用效果。方法将受试患者120例随机分为实验组A(复合碘组)、实验组B(安尔碘组)和对照组(碘酊组)各40例;实验组A和实验组B采用一步完成皮肤擦拭消毒法,对照组采用常规两步完成皮肤擦拭消毒法,采样与检测方法按卫生部《医院消毒技术规范》执行。结果复合碘组、安尔碘组和碘酊组杀灭率分别为(95.44±9.45)%、(95.29±7.21)%和(96.24±11.12)%;复合碘、安尔碘和碘酊消毒合格率分别为97.50%、95.00%和97.50%,3组的杀灭率和消毒合格率比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);复合碘组、安尔碘组的1次消毒操作时间分别与碘酊组比较,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论2种复合型皮肤消毒剂(复合碘、安尔碘)的消毒效果均确切,与传统的碘酊、乙醇消毒法比较差异无统计学意义,且操作简便,消毒操作时间短,省时、省力、安全、实用,有助于提高护士的工作效率,值得临床推广应用。

OBJECTIVE To observe the clinical efficacy of two kinds of compound skin disinfectants （compound iodine and Anerdian）. METHODS One hundred and twenty recruited patients were divided into three groups randomly, group A （compound iodine group）, group B （Anerdian group） and control group （iodine tincture group）, 40 patients per group. The groups A and B were carried on with one-step skin greasing disinfection. The control group was carried on with routine two-steps skin greasing disinfection. The sampling and detection were carried on by The Technological Specification of Hospital Disinfection published by the Ministry of Health. RESULTS The kill ratio of three groups was （95. 44 ±9. 45）%, （95. 29± 7. 21）% and（96. 24 ± 11. 12）%, respectively. Their disinfection qualification ratio was 97.50%, 95.00% and 97.50%, respectively. Comparing the kill ratio and disinfection qualification ratio, there was no significant difference among three groups. CONCLUSIONS The disinfection efficacy of two kinds of the compound skin disinfectants are definite, there is no difference comparing with the traditional iodine tincture and ethanol disinfectants, but they are easy to carry on, safe and practical and the time is shorter, saving the time and the labor. It is helpful to increase the work efficiency of the nurse and deserve to be extended in the clinical application.